Taiwan does not have the kind of unmanageable racial or religious conflicts that are a feature of flashpoints around the world. The great majority of people living here are Han Chinese, differentiated only by language and life experience. Sharing the island with them is an Aboriginal population that poses no threat to Han people in terms of number or economic strength. So all of the so-called ethnic conflicts and accusations of "Greater China consciousness," "Hoklo chauvinism" and other products of electioneering are merely forms of self-hypnosis to encourage a state of mutual enmity. Viewed from the outside, or even from any real understanding of China, these "conflicts" are simply absurd.
This is not to say that ethnic conflict does not exist. The harsh repression the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) employed against the people -- including Mainlanders who were "their own" people -- will not be easily forgotten. Besides, political parties, individual politicians and the media all benefit from controversy, which pours salt on old wounds rather than healing them.
But I believe there is a deeper cause that serves to consolidate ethnic divisions: feelings of superiority (and inferiority) and cultural discrimination (including self-denigration).
Generally speaking, many Mainlanders over a certain age -- many of whom live in Taipei -- feel superior to people from the center and the south of the country and look at the Mandarin spoken by them in the way that an old New Englander might regard the speech of anyone from west of the Appalachians. They feel they have seen the world; they are not "common."
In addition, under 50 years of KMT rule, a policy of ethnic discrimination was maintained, including within the household registration system, to ensure that preference for certain jobs was given to specific groups. Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), Hakka and Aboriginal languages were also suppressed in schools and the media. Through language and "place of birth" data, systemic indoctrination internalized distinctions of superiority and inferiority, sophistication and vulgarity, thus creating a benchmark for discrimination.
Hoklo people are now making a great fuss over re-establishing their own identity and building up their confidence as a polity. After the long years of colonial repression that they endured, this is not difficult to understand. But having freed themselves from being the victims of discrimination, Hoklo are now proceeding to despise the Hakka and the Aborigines.
Through a twisted psychology, the victim is now turning oppressor, and Hoklo are proceeding to reject Mainlander culture wholesale for the sake of self-aggrandizement. But it goes further. All groups of Han people are joining together to despise the Aborigines and develop a system of discrimination against foreign laborers or anyone from a Third World country.
As for Aborigines, they have long been pawns in political battles between various Han groups. Some Aboriginal political leaders have become familiar with the logic of these conflicts such that now, faced with Han political pressure, they launch counter-offensives using the same weapons of empty ideology. In the government agencies dealing with Aboriginal affairs, infighting over resources and the use of discrimination is unrivaled.
We should look at these ethnic divisions from the perspective of history, legislation and the deep-seated propensity for racial discrimination and feelings of superiority in Chinese culture. If ethnic groups do not reflect on their behavior before judging others, terms such as "ethnic equality" will become nothing more than empty political rhetoric.
Kuo Li-hsin is an executive member of the Campaign for Media Reform.
TRANSLATED BY Ian Bartholomew
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers